Hello Mr. DeSapio,
Thank you for bringing us the wisdom of Judge Napolitano. I wonder what other parts of the Constitution Christie would feel free to violate. If I were Paul in that instance, I would have said it is not a mere academic exercise discussed in a Senate committee... it is my sworn duty to uphold the Constitution. The Constitution was not written to make law enforcement easy for former prosecutors like Christie, but to insure the rights of the innocent are not violated... to guard against an overbearing and intrusive government. Christie is a statist.
Respectfully,
O.A..

Thanks, Scott. Good analysis by Napolitano.

I think the judge is right. Unless Rand Paul is elected it will be business as usual when it comes to NSA spying.

For those that disagree with Rand Paul consider this. Admittedly my argument veers from a strict discussion of the 4th Amendment, but it does speak to governmental overreach by those in power.

Consider the IRS scandal where those in power, President Obama and his sycophants like Lois Lerner, used the hammer of government power to specifically persecute those citizens that they hate for political reasons. I doubt any person who reads these forums would argue that anything done in that whole scandal could be considered either right or even legal.

The problem, though, is that no matter how much we may despise President Obama and his minions for their crimes against their enemies, he is not alone. Chris Christie's minions, and by extension himself, are responsible for the whole Bridgegate fiasco in New Jersey which was nothing more than a spiteful act by Governor Christie and Co. to strike back at their political enemies. Let's say that the Bridgegate thing caused thousands of ordinary people to needlessly sit in traffic for an extra 2 hours on their way home from work one day. Is that somehow more tolerable than requiring thousands of working class people to sit in a jail cell for 2 hours without rhyme, reason, warning or explanation?

The point is that people in power from whatever political party are known to abuse that power whenever it suits them. Do we want the NSA to be able to gather neverending mountains of information about private law abiding citizens who have done nothing wrong without a warrant? What could Hillary Clinton do with all that data at her disposal? What would Chris Christie do with all that information at his disposal? Do you trust ANY politician with that kind of information? I don't.

Chris Christie would argue that the metadata information is necessary to fight terrorism, and the government simply can't do without it. He would argue that having to get a warrant against certain individuals is impractical in the fast paced world of cyber this and that. One thing to keep in mind, though, is that Mr. Christie is also quick on the trigger to tell us all how successful he was as a federal prosecutor, appointed serendipitously enough on Sept. 10, 2001. What he won't mention is that he was a successful prosecutor who had to get a warrant from a judge using probable cause when they were fighting the terrorists back then. Why, then, is it so different now? Why should we use the 4th Amendment (or the Constitution in general) as toilet paper now, when we were perfectly able to get the job done back then without violating the founding documents that we hold most dear?

Chris Christie is a former government prosecutor. To him, everyone around him is a potential criminal. He spends his time arguing to get evidence in. Judge Nap hears the obvious objection by Dr. Paul, and rules, "Objection sustained. Exclude the evidence."

The learned judge has said dozens of times that judges hold themselves on call twenty-four hours a day, seven days a week, to issue warrants. So "there isn't time to get a warrant" won't fly. It isn't a matter of waiting to catch a judge in chambers. When a judge pulls this scut detail, his smartphone is his chambers, and the door is always open.

Another thing: don't expect a government prosecutor to advise ordinary people to arm themselves to ward off a predator. He thinks in terms of preventative arrest and detention. Benjamin Franklin would remind him sharply that liberty and safety should never trade off.

Crystal clear.

From the article:

These federal acts not only violate the Fourth Amendment, they not only bring back a system the Founders and the Framers hated, rejected and fought a war to be rid of, they not only are contrary to the letter and spirit of the Constitution, but they produce information overload by getting all the data they can about everyone.

The Judge nails it again. Those in government power must really hate that damn Constitution.

Good find Scott.

Great article. That a person can get a law degree or practice law or pass high school and say what Christie said is dumbfounding.

This is a perfect case where politeness does not apply. Christie should be called a tyrannical dirtbag and that is not an ad hominem attack, it is a fact.

Christie is taking the same view as the original British tax collectors. No irony is lost on me either because this is precisely the same tack taken by the Government in Atlas Shrugged when Reardon is blackmailed using photos of he and Dagney. The intent was to create lawbreakers so as to control people - not merely to punish for wrong-doing. If Christie really believes this is the way to go, he should install video cameras in every room of his house and every room in his Government offices and post their feeds on the Internet for all to see. I suspect that he would refuse to lead from the front.

I caught the fact that Rand Paul was trying to bring the Constitution into focus on this issue. But like a typical liberal that feels like he is losing a debate, Christie resorted to shrill interruptions disrupting Rand Paul's attempt to articulate an important point. And then Paul fell for it by trying to return with quips and jabs. The focus was lost in the sound bite format of the "debate".

This article is so good because it returns the focus of Rand Paul's' point back to what it should have been. I wish Andrew Napolitano would run for president. Imagine restoring reason to the White House. What a chance to lecture Congress and the Supreme Court on their duties, roles, and powers.

OOPS! Nailed by the double negative......

Owing to our nature, those among us who seem inclined to give up a little freedom in exchange for a little security are not likely to obtain or retain neither.

I would rather have one of the real housewives of New Jersey than Chris Christie, or actually maybe he is one of them. He is gross, loudmoouth, and he kissed up to Obama just to get money for hurricane Sandy. I lost trust in him at that point.